To the public sector bashers, I refuse 2 be made feel guilty for making a good choice

jimmmy

achtungbarry wrote: »

I chose the public sector.

Why would'nt ye ? Higher pay than the private sector, not as much pressure as the private sector, usually more holidays + sick days, more secure, infinitely better pension etc. Only problem is the country is borrowing 22 billion this year, much of it to pay your salaries + pensions, as the tax take from the rest of us is not enough.

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

Why would'nt ye ? Higher pay than the private sector,

Not in all cases,in my case my previous job was for a multinational, good pay & conditions & Health insurance and 2 bonuses a year,

jimmmy wrote: »

not as much pressure as the private sector,

Agree with this in a way, In the private sector I was expected to be on call and work late unpaid, Why should anyone work for free? This is an area where private sector workers are being abused!

jimmmy wrote: »

usually more holidays + sick days,

I don't get any more holidays but I do get 5 uncertified sick days a year which I rarely use. Some people do abuse them but 95% do not.

jimmmy wrote: »

more secure, infinitely better pension etc.

Of course its more secure, but unless you are pre '95 its not as secure as most think. Job Security is what made me move here a few years back. As I've explained above I won't have 40 years service at retirement so seeing as the money I receive from my state pension is deducted from my public service pension I will probably receive a very small pension if I qualify for one at all. And many public sector workers will be in the same boat.[/QUOTE]

jimmmy wrote: »

Only problem is the country is borrowing 22 billion this year, much of it to pay your salaries + pensions, as the tax take from the rest of us is not enough.

As I've already explained above, as much as you like to think you do,you don't pay for me.
The Public vs Private sector rubbish has been done to death and the only people to benefit are the government as they are using it to take the heat off themselves and to divide the workers. A lot of the the generalisations about the public sector couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not civil service, but I know the ordinary civil servant, contrary to popular belief does not live like a king and some sections of the public sector generate revenue for the taxpayer. Back to the original topic, I chose to go public sector, mainly to get away from shift work as my kids were young at the time, I certainly don't feel guilty for making this choice. The chance was there for everybody to apply for the public sector at the time.

sovtek

D.S. wrote: »

At the end of the day, the public sector is a colossal waste of money with v little return. It's definitely time for an overhaul and it's long overdue.

It's also a waste of money to be giving billions to banks in the hopes that they can inflate the housing bubble again, which wont' and shouldn't happen. It's a waste to give companies huge subsidies and then try to claw back the deficit from the PAYE worker...which include public and private sector workers... just so these companies can law everyone off and then send the jobs overseas (which is also facilitated by state funds)
I was at the march the other day because it was a march against the government stealing our money and giving it to themselves and their buddies.
Cutting back on the public sector is never going to get us out of this mess anyway.

PeakOutput

sovtek wrote: »

It's also a waste of money to be giving billions to banks in the hopes that they can inflate the housing bubble again,

misunderstand the situation much? thats not the purpose of recapitalisation at all

Cutting back on the public sector is never going to get us out of this mess anyway.

it will go a long long way to help though

sovtek

PeakOutput wrote: »

misunderstand the situation much? thats not the purpose of recapitalisation at all

I understand it quite well. You mean stated purpose?

it will go a long long way to help though

NO it wont. Cutting peoples pay will only decrease the amount of money in the economy.

iseeyou

I simply do not understand where people get their ideas about the Public Sector. Unless you work there you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a civil servant and like most others I took this job knowing that I would have security, my friends thought I was an absolute nut for taking a lower paid job and the majority of them went into the private sector to enjoy years of overtime, bonuses, bumped up pay and many other perks, what did I get, 20 days holidays and a paycheck every week for the exact same amount REGARDLESS. Contrary to what people out there think, I do not get some bumper pension, I get on average 70% of what it costs to replace me, which if I stay at the same grade will be about €20k, €12.5k is made up from the State Pension and €7.5k is from what I pay on average €85 per week for, over 40 years that works out at €176,800 which if I live to a hundred I will never see a third of that. I agree that we need to pull together to get this country back to some form of normality, but would everybody stop this tit for tat crap and actually look at who caused this. It wasnt the "normal" bank workers, or the "ordinary" builders it was the fat cats and they are sitting back laughing their asses off now watching us squabble over it.

Scofflaw

iseeyou wrote: »

I simply do not understand where people get their ideas about the Public Sector. Unless you work there you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a civil servant and like most others I took this job knowing that I would have security, my friends thought I was an absolute nut for taking a lower paid job and the majority of them went into the private sector to enjoy years of overtime, bonuses, bumped up pay and many other perks, what did I get, 20 days holidays and a paycheck every week for the exact same amount REGARDLESS. Contrary to what people out there think, I do not get some bumper pension, I get on average 70% of what it costs to replace me, which if I stay at the same grade will be about €20k, €12.5k is made up from the State Pension and €7.5k is from what I pay on average €85 per week for, over 40 years that works out at €176,800 which if I live to a hundred I will never see a third of that. I agree that we need to pull together to get this country back to some form of normality, but would everybody stop this tit for tat crap and actually look at who caused this. It wasnt the "normal" bank workers, or the "ordinary" builders it was the fat cats and they are sitting back laughing their asses off now watching us squabble over it.

It doesn't matter who caused it, how much or how little you get paid, or how hard you work. Tax revenues are not sufficient to meet the current public sector wage bill.

plainly,
Scofflaw

sovtek

Scofflaw wrote: »

It doesn't matter who caused it, how much or how little you get paid, or how hard you work. Tax revenues are not sufficient to meet the current public sector wage bill.

plainly,
Scofflaw

and how is cutting peoples pay going to increase revenue?

vinylbomb

Agree with Scofflaw.

People in the public sector simply don't seem to understand at the moment, the money is NOT there to pay their salaries.

Its not a case of putting less money into the economy, or anything like that. The money is not there.

Expenditure needs to be hauled in, and public salaries are on way of doing this.

I currently work as a contractor in a semi-state quango (so get absolutely none of the benefits of employment of the state) but it is a farce, guys in here are on more money than they would be in commensurate positions in the private sector, and get 6-8 weeks holiday a year. No pressure on work practices, flexi-time, and yet they are still moaning about paying the levy?

Crazy is the only way I can describe it.

Scofflaw

sovtek wrote: »

It doesn't matter who caused it, how much or how little you get paid, or how hard you work. Tax revenues are not sufficient to meet the current public sector wage bill.

and how is cutting peoples pay going to increase revenue?

It doesn't - it decreases costs.

unnecessarily, one would think
Scofflaw

iseeyou

It does matter who caused it, it does matter how little I get paid, and it does matter how hard I work.
Im not saying that I am not willing to take a pay cut, Im more than willing to do so. Im not grabbing my salary and hiding it under the matress, I am willing to sacrifice part of my hard earned money to do my bit, but what I am not willing to do is stand by while people who are, or used to be employed in the private sector seem to think they can get away with saying that we are overpaid and underworked, and somehow deserve this. After all, who would be processing dole payments if we were not there.
Listen, we public sector workers dont all marry each other, some of us have partners who, and I admit, are not as fortunate as us to have a job, but that means as a couple, are BOTH suffering. We dont get special discounts on bills, we dont get to shop at special shops where everything is cheaper, and despite what people think, we do actually work for a living. So excuse me for being angry at the fact that I am on average, lower paid than someone who would have been employed in the Private Sector, I am someone who would have had to budget every penny to have some sort of normal living standards, and now because the Government screwed up and robbed every single one of us I am facing the same financial struggles as everyone else.

Lemming

iseeyou wrote: »

It does matter who caused it, it does matter how little I get paid, and it does matter how hard I work.

Really? How exactly will that deal with the very sobering blackhole of a deficit this nation is looking at?

The only part that matters in the above (at least with regards the rest of the country) is that the person(s) responsible are removed from a position to do so ever again. The rest of what you said above only matters in trying to justify your job if/whenever a culling of numbers begins in your area of work.

Again, none of which addresses the issue pressing the nation: The. Money. Isn't. There.

I am willing to sacrifice part of my hard earned money to do my bit, but what I am not willing to do is stand by while people who are, or used to be employed in the private sector seem to think they can get away with saying that we are overpaid and underworked, and somehow deserve this.

I don't think anybody has said that public sector workers "deserve" anything, but you most certainly as a group have not endeared yourself to anybody but your own union leaders who have you swallowing their guff hook, line, and sinker that this is some sort of "class war".

After all, who would be processing dole payments if we were not there.
Listen, we public sector workers dont all marry each other, some of us have partners who, and I admit, are not as fortunate as us to have a job, but that means as a couple, are BOTH suffering. We dont get special discounts on bills, we dont get to shop at special shops where everything is cheaper, and despite what people think, we do actually work for a living. So excuse me for being angry at the fact that I am on average, lower paid than someone who would have been employed in the Private Sector, I am someone who would have had to budget every penny to have some sort of normal living standards, and now because the Government screwed up and robbed every single one of us I am facing the same financial struggles as everyone else.

And any of this rant deals with the fact that. The. Money. Isn't. There to meet your current pay-packet in what way?

ixoy

iseeyou wrote: »

It does matter who caused it, it does matter how little I get paid, and it does matter how hard I work.

Unfortunately it doesn't, not really. It should matter, but that's not the same as it does matter.

but what I am not willing to do is stand by while people who are, or used to be employed in the private sector seem to think they can get away with saying that we are overpaid and underworked, and somehow deserve this.

People are wrong to imply this - what's really annoying private sector people is that there's those in the public sector who don't think they should take any hit. It's incredibly aggravating - I don't think you're one of those, but it's making people see red.

As to being underworked - some of you are, some of you aren't. It's a fallacy to say you're all working hard and doing necessary jobs but equally false to say you're all slackers. That's based on my own experience with the civil service, so I have some idea what I'm talking about from a private sector perspective.

some of us have partners who, and I admit, are not as fortunate as us to have a job, but that means as a couple, are BOTH suffering. We dont get special discounts on bills, we dont get to shop at special shops where everything is cheaper, and despite what people think, we do actually work for a living.

Neither do many private sector get these discounts, but I accept your point. Of course your marital circumstances can't really come into account when making these decisions.

So excuse me for being angry at the fact that I am on average, lower paid than someone who would have been employed in the Private Sector,

Depending on the role, maybe. Some reports say otherwise - especially over time, where the pay increases over years begins to compensate for the initial low pay. Pay is far from exceptional at the lower levels, but then for the responsibilities it shouldn't necessarily be.

I am someone who would have had to budget every penny to have some sort of normal living standards, and now because the Government screwed up and robbed every single one of us I am facing the same financial struggles as everyone else.

Yep, you're right to be angry at the government's screwups. Round 2 will presumably be a range of increases taxes that will target all sectors and unite us all in being really bloody furious!

iseeyou

Ioxy, thank you for actually reading what I am saying rather than jumping down my throat. I am not saying that there is not a massive problem in the way the service is run, if I had it my way, in my building 20% of the staff would be up for the chop, because they are not up to scratch, but thats another story
I have tremendous sympathy for those people not fortunate enough to wake up every day to have a job to go to, and as I said earlier, I may be a public servant, but that doesnt mean that I have not been affected by whats going on around me.

I think people need to actually think before they speak though. A close friend of mine works part time in the service, and with the levy will come out with €25 more for 3 days work than if she was on social welfare, and she pays childcare too. Yes I take on board that the pay for higher ups is above par, especially when its the lower grades that do the footwork, but thats one of the main reasons we are outraged, we as lower paid, as usual in this country, are bearing the brunt of this levy, its disproportinate to the higher grades, so I will end up paying more than my line manager, who is taking home easily €15k more than me!

sovtek

Lemming wrote: »

Again, none of which addresses the issue pressing the nation: The. Money. Isn't. There.



I don't think anybody has said that public sector workers "deserve" anything, but you most certainly as a group have not endeared yourself to anybody but your own union leaders who have you swallowing their guff hook, line, and sinker that this is some sort of "class war".

If anyone thinks this isn't a class war must be living in a world of make believe. The. Money. Is. There...its just a matter of who gets it and the priorities of the people who manage it.
At the moment it's the people at the top both public and private.
This whole public vs private sector garbage is part of the strategy to divide and conquor whilst those at the top make off with our hard earned tax money.

Lemming

sovtek wrote: »

If anyone thinks this isn't a class war must be living in a world of make believe. The. Money. Is. There...its just a matter of who gets it and the priorities of the people who manage it.

You heard it here folks ... sovtek thinks the money is there and this is all just a ruse to lower the public sector purse costs.

This whole public vs private sector garbage is part of the strategy to divide and conquor whilst those at the top make off with our hard earned tax money.

The only people feeding this strategy are indeed "at the top" ... of the unions. The people on 6 figure salaries who are playing cynical political theatre to pander to their base so that they can keep their jobs instea of doing the right thing by their members and ensuring their members jobs in the long-term.

PeakOutput

sovtek wrote: »

I understand it quite well. You mean stated purpose?

no i meant what i said(i preface this by saying ai have no qualification in economics or finance or whatever so i am completely open to correction)

the housing market will not recover to how it was at least for a very very long time

the purpose of recapitalisation is to instill confidence in the banks making them more attractive to investors so that they can continue to operate as banks and carry on lending. part of this will be mortgages the way more important part of this will be lending to business which is what helps our economy grow.

no recapitalistion = no confidence in the banks = no investments = banks fail

when the banks fail their assets will be used to pay off their debts as far as i am aware these assets include every penny of savings that people have put into the bank(im going to take an uneducated guess that the total savings in aib and boi greatly exceed 7 billion. so the government has guaranteed the savings way back when?? around august september? so if the banks go bust they owe everyone money(as i said presumably alot more than 7billion). if they can find a way that costs less to keep the banks running(ie recapitalisation) then that is the best option to take for the goverment for the banks and for the taxpayer


so as i said im open to correction but assuming the above is relatively correct if the goverment decided to not spend taxpayers money to recapitalise the banks they would fail. if the goverment also did not guarantee the savings the vast majority of this countries tax payers would have lost everything so what part of what they did was wrong?

also all the public servants that post here seem to be on the same wavelength as most of the anti public service posts. nothing that is said against the public service is directed at any one person. if you are in the group that works hard is not going to strike over pay cuts or a pension levy then thats brilliant you are not who we are talking about.

if you are not hard working and dont believe your salary / pension / job should be touched in any way shape or form then i hope when the job losses come your at the top of the list to be axed because there are plenty of people who have already felt the pinch or are willing to help the country that will take your place

PeakOutput

sovtek wrote: »

If anyone thinks this isn't a class war must be living in a world of make believe. The. Money. Is. There

so this reported 20billion deficit, international reports stating we are the worst performing economy in europe right now,massive job loss's and massive loss of confidence in our banks by investors are just fairy tales?

hughs

sovtek wrote: »

It's also a waste of money to be giving billions to banks in the hopes that they can inflate the housing bubble again, which wont' and shouldn't happen. It's a waste to give companies huge subsidies and then try to claw back the deficit from the PAYE worker...which include public and private sector workers... just so these companies can law everyone off and then send the jobs overseas (which is also facilitated by state funds)
I was at the march the other day because it was a march against the government stealing our money and giving it to themselves and their buddies.
Cutting back on the public sector is never going to get us out of this mess anyway.

You have obviously no idea of the importance of the banking system to the economy. While it is sickening to see workers pay being cut (both private and public), banks who have behaved recklessly surviving and private companies being allowed to fail. But the reality is that we simply cannot allow the banking system to fail. We can have a mature debate the scale of the burden to be shared by those at each end of the income scale but only the ignorant would suggest that incomes in society as whole do not need to fall.

diverdriver

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the banks and their purpose. The reason they are being bailed and cannot be allowed to fail is simple. They lend to people in business or setting up business. They lend to people who need to buy something. That money is spent thus producing wealth and creating jobs.

Let's take a simple example. You run a factory making knurled flange brackets. You get an order for fifty thousand. You need to buy raw materials, you haven't got the cash because you're still waiting to be paid by another customer. So you go to the bank, they lend you the money short term and off you go. What happens if the bank doesn't lend you the money? You start laying off workers and eventually go bust. That is what's happening now all over the place. The banks have to start lending money again. That's why they're being bailed out, not because the politicians are looking after their friends in the banks but because we all need banks.

Simple economics.

sovtek

diverdriver wrote: »

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the banks and their purpose. The reason they are being bailed and cannot be allowed to fail is simple. They lend to people in business or setting up business. They lend to people who need to buy something. That money is spent thus producing wealth and creating jobs.

Even if that were the case...which it isn't...then it would cost less to nationalize the banks, take control and start lending under control of the government in the people's interest. As it stands banks aren't lending even though its costing us billions. They have already taken the money to do things like pay bonuses to CEO's, take trips to Las Vegas etc etc.
Thats but one thing the government could do if the motivation was to get lending going again and it would cost less.
Right now they are making sure that their buddies are made whole because of their own greed and to prop up the bubble again because that is the only song and dance they know.
Fortunately everyone is tapped out so it wont work anyway.

Simple economics.

Simply wrong I'm afraid.

sovtek

PeakOutput wrote: »

no i meant what i said(i preface this by saying ai have no qualification in economics or finance or whatever so i am completely open to correction)

Neither do I but I'm not convinced that most supposed economist have much better clue.

the housing market will not recover to how it was at least for a very very long time

It shouldn't! Small, mostly shabbily built houses in a relatively small European backwater should never cost more than €100k.
Unfortunately this government doesn't have a clue how to run the economy any other way so they are trying, partially, trying to prop up the bubble again and save their friends.

the purpose of recapitalisation is to instill confidence in the banks making them more attractive to investors so that they can continue to operate as banks and carry on lending. part of this will be mortgages the way more important part of this will be lending to business which is what helps our economy grow.

The government doesn't need the banks to do this or it doesn't need to give them money to do it if it owns the bank.

no recapitalistion = no confidence in the banks = no investments = banks fail

Banks have failed because they've been acting like casino gamblers. Confidence will come back if heads roll, top people (both government and banks) are frog marched and tough regulation put in place.

so as i said im open to correction but assuming the above is relatively correct if the goverment decided to not spend taxpayers money to recapitalise the banks they would fail. if the goverment also did not guarantee the savings the vast majority of this countries tax payers would have lost everything so what part of what they did was wrong?

Bailing them out to the tune of billions by buying bad loans and guaranteeing the savings accounts are two different things.

also all the public servants that post here seem to be on the same wavelength as most of the anti public service posts. nothing that is said against the public service is directed at any one person. if you are in the group that works hard is not going to strike over pay cuts or a pension levy then thats brilliant you are not who we are talking about.

I'm not in the public service and I marched because the PAYE worker should not have to pay one cent for the stupidity, arrogance, greed and criminality of the ruling elite in this country. I'm also going to join any work stoppages for the same reason.
The only thing that is going to make things better in this country is for the place to gring to a halt. Only then will fundamental change take place to because the people that run things in this country do not give a **** about anyone but themselves and their cronies.

if you are not hard working and dont believe your salary / pension / job should be touched in any way shape or form then i hope when the job losses come your at the top of the list to be axed because there are plenty of people who have already felt the pinch or are willing to help the country that will take your place

Loosing your job or your salary being decreased is not going to help anything.
The PAYE worker are the ones who made the wealth...we should keep it. We are also the ones who prop it up. Not banks!

sovtek

hughs wrote: »

You have obviously no idea of the importance of the banking system to the

The banking system as it stands needs to fail. The way it is being propped up is a huge waste of money and will not solve the problem and probably make it worse.

We can have a mature debate the scale of the burden to be shared by those at each end of the income scale but only the ignorant would suggest that incomes in society as whole do not need to fall.

Its ignorant to think that falling incomes are going to get us out of this mess. Do you think that jobs are going to be created by people having less money/no money to spend?

sovtek

PeakOutput wrote: »

so this reported 20billion deficit, international reports stating we are the worst performing economy in europe right now,massive job loss's and massive loss of confidence in our banks by investors are just fairy tales?

I'm not sure what you think here contradicts what I said?
Last I heard it was 2 billion. How much of which is being given to banks again?

Martyr

hughs wrote:

However, the impression is that there there seems to be no consequences for someone in the public sector who does not perform.

alot of administrative jobs over the years were created in the public sector, simply to help a family relative get work.

any time i've tried to contact administrative people in FAS, HSE or county councils, the receptionist has either told me the person was off "sick" or on "holiday" ... this is very common, and very long holidays

gerry28

alot of administrative jobs over the years were created in the public sector, simply to help a family relative get work.

Have you any concrete examples of this? I'll bet you don't!!

iseeyou

Oh come on Martyr, Very long holidays.... get your facts straight, Im a C.S for the last 9 years and I get 21 days leave, we dont get to take unlimited sick leave and we certainly didnt get our jobs on the back of having a family member who was already serving. This is the problem, people thinking that somehow we should be subjected to unfair "pay cuts" because you have a warped image of how the Public Service actually works. We do a job, and we have pressures and deadlines and we have reviews and are pulled up if we are not up to scratch.

Martyr

i grew up with people, just not the brightest in the world..but somehow managed to land some of the best paid office jobs in public sector.

you don't get these jobs based on merit.
all you need to know are the right people.

you don't agree?

everyone knows a government job is a well paid job for life.
you would have to do something really terrible to get sacked..and even then you'd probably get paid off very well.

its tax payers money, who the hell cares!

no, i've no evidence, just personal experiences and first hand stories of people who worked in those services and its generally accepted (atleast where i live) public sector jobs are not advertised to just anyone.

nepotism is rife in public sector.

its unfortunate theres no statistical data available on staff absenteeism in public sector, or how money is being spent..that would be excellent ammo against public sector moaners.

for example, how many staff share the same role in a department?
how many days are taken sick? holidays? how productive are these people?
and is it really necessary to have more than 1 person for that role?
are you really worth 50k?

In my own experience, in the past, i've made attempts to contact certain individuals at administrative levels in HSE,FAS and County Councils..and as i said, quite a number of times, these people were absent on "holiday" or "sick" - that was the excuse i was given..yet it was so common, so obvious these people simply weren't doing their jobs, and of course can get away with it really easily.

Try to get a hold of a recruitment officer at FAS on a friday morning, where they have a half-day, and you'll be out of luck

Martyr

Oh come on Martyr, Very long holidays.... get your facts straight, Im a C.S for the last 9 years and I get 21 days leave, we dont get to take unlimited sick leave and we certainly didnt get our jobs on the back of having a family member who was already serving

you're just 1 person, you can't speak for everyone and i'm not saying everyone in public sector works like this.

but there definitely are those who do get away with it.

Naz_st

ixoy wrote: »

As to being underworked - some of you are, some of you aren't. It's a fallacy to say you're all working hard and doing necessary jobs but equally false to say you're all slackers. That's based on my own experience with the civil service, so I have some idea what I'm talking about from a private sector perspective.

iseeyou wrote: »

I am not saying that there is not a massive problem in the way the service is run, if I had it my way, in my building 20% of the staff would be up for the chop, because they are not up to scratch, but thats another story

This to me highlights the crux of the public/private "division".
That being:
1) Most reasonable private sector employees don't think that *every* public servant is lazy and inefficient.
2) Most reasonable public sector employees accept that not everyone employed in the public service works as hard or as efficiently as they could. (most I've talked to admit to personally knowing a few "wasters")
3) And it's also reasonably to state that not all private sector workers are the paragons of efficiency either.

But here's the essential, and to me fundamental, difference:
Over time, and especially during a recession, inefficient workers in the private sector will be fired, made redundant or in the case of large unionised private sector companies, lose their jobs through company liquidation and subsequent re-structuring. So there is an auto-corrective measure for this inefficiency problem in the private sector. [incidentally, this is also why I think the bankers at the top who drove their banks to the point of destruction need to be axed & others have salaries massively cut]
But in the public sector the inefficient employees will get promoted to higher paid positions over time, alongside their more effective colleagues - <i>there's no distinction</i>

In summary:
1) There is a lack of the very meritocracy-based employment and consequent performance based promotion/benefit structure in the public sector.
2) The public sector unions most definitely and vociferously don't want merit-based remuneration or performance linked promotions.

These two facts lead to the inescapable result that if there are no sanctions or consequences of doing a poor job, and there's no ability for selective and widespread job cuts of the identified inefficient roles, then this <b>by its very nature</b> entails that all public sector workers have to get tarred with the same brush. You just can't have it both ways.

A prime example of this sort of mentality would be the HSE:

When 2 private sector companies merge, a whole raft of money is saved by combining staff that are doing the same job into one department and getting rid of a large percentage of the payroll. When the HSE was created by the merging of numerous health boards, <b> no one</b> was removed from the payroll.
(from an old business post article here):

A threatened strike by managerial members of Impact and a refusal to cooperate with the changeover plan unless they received compensation for extra transition related workload resulted in a deal guaranteeing no forced redundancies and an 11 per cent pay increase for managers

Just think about what that means for a moment. The proposal was to create a "more efficient" health service by merging together distinct entities, yet no cutbacks are made, and in fact more administration is needed to deal with having disparate entities with numerous common roles, handled from a central authority (e.g. PPARS anyone?). I'd love to know what the definition of "more efficient" is in that process. This is a single example, but to me it is the mentality demonstrated by this that underscores why the private sector feels justified in suggesting, broadly, that we are paying an unnecessarily high price for our services.

And ultimately, as has been pointed out countless times before, it doesn't matter if you agree with this assessment since the simple fact is that the country just doesn't have the money to pay the bills. It seems almost tautological to point out that benchmarking caused salaries to rise in line with the private sector pay in the good times, and should, by virtue of precisely the same reasoning for its inception, lower salaries in the bad times.